It's well known that attackers have the advantage in Civ. I just had a small thought to nerf them a bit: Force them to occupy all cities captured and make all captured cities unproductive until peace is made. If insufficient units were occupying a city then they would be unable to heal and may in fact suffer damage. The city would not be productive at all until it was given up in a peace treaty. Would be a nice way to limit aggressive wars.
"Occupation" of cities
- Thread starter Gangor
- Start date
The idea has merit, but should be based on a sliding scale. i.e. if you have a really good international reputation (especially with the "occupied civ" and they don't like their own civ much, then maybe they will see it more as "liberation" than "occupation" --- however this wouldn't be a common occurrence). But on a simplistic level - I like it.
Hi
I disagree. I think warfare is weighed HEAVILY in favor of the defendor. I mean on average (situations can vary but on average) in order to take a city at bare minimum the attacker requires a 2-1 advantage in number of units attacking over units defending in the city. And thats not even considering things like the attackers inability to use roads/rr or how war weariness mechanics work. Maiantainance costs or healing times or even really considering a need for units to actually hold that city from any counter attacks once its taken.
As for occupying captured cities. You take a city, your maintainace costs go up while its spends turns in resistance unable to produce anything. Small cities its not that bad but larger cities can take over 15 turns or more sometimes. It goes out of revolt your mainatianace costs go up even more but the city still needs to be built up from scratch and may even be going into starvation since it hasnt gotten its full border pop yet and/or still swamped by culture from other cities that havent been taken yet. With very rare exceptions like a shrined holy city or city with important wonders that havent obselted yet most captured cities are a drain on your empire for MANY turns before they are actually productive.
Meanwhile you STILL have to occupy or risk losing it. You have to deal with "we yearn to join our motherland" unhappiness in that city until/if you completely destroy that civ. Not ot mention the fact that that city is very vulnerable to going back into culture revolt from the culture of the enemy cities around it (or worse actually flipping over to a third civ). And thats assuming AP/UN liberate votes wont be an issue.
All of which brings up the questions as to exactly why all this needs to be even more of a pain to deal with?
Kaytie
I disagree. I think warfare is weighed HEAVILY in favor of the defendor. I mean on average (situations can vary but on average) in order to take a city at bare minimum the attacker requires a 2-1 advantage in number of units attacking over units defending in the city. And thats not even considering things like the attackers inability to use roads/rr or how war weariness mechanics work. Maiantainance costs or healing times or even really considering a need for units to actually hold that city from any counter attacks once its taken.
As for occupying captured cities. You take a city, your maintainace costs go up while its spends turns in resistance unable to produce anything. Small cities its not that bad but larger cities can take over 15 turns or more sometimes. It goes out of revolt your mainatianace costs go up even more but the city still needs to be built up from scratch and may even be going into starvation since it hasnt gotten its full border pop yet and/or still swamped by culture from other cities that havent been taken yet. With very rare exceptions like a shrined holy city or city with important wonders that havent obselted yet most captured cities are a drain on your empire for MANY turns before they are actually productive.
Meanwhile you STILL have to occupy or risk losing it. You have to deal with "we yearn to join our motherland" unhappiness in that city until/if you completely destroy that civ. Not ot mention the fact that that city is very vulnerable to going back into culture revolt from the culture of the enemy cities around it (or worse actually flipping over to a third civ). And thats assuming AP/UN liberate votes wont be an issue.
All of which brings up the questions as to exactly why all this needs to be even more of a pain to deal with?
Kaytie
I like the reality of it. + I would also change other things which reduce the defender advantage (e.g. roads work for attackers), terrain bonus for attackers, seiging....
And definitely change how culture works... no city flipping.
Its a bit of a moot point anyway, because you would have to position units in for the counter-attack (as pointed out by Kaytie).
Perhaps let me rephrase my support; resistance will remain until the civ is completely anexxed or given over in a treaty. If given over in a treaty, population will drop by 90%, maintenance costs will increase (say by a factor of 20% --- until population is at a sufficient level to maintain it at the normal costings).
And definitely change how culture works... no city flipping.
Its a bit of a moot point anyway, because you would have to position units in for the counter-attack (as pointed out by Kaytie).
Perhaps let me rephrase my support; resistance will remain until the civ is completely anexxed or given over in a treaty. If given over in a treaty, population will drop by 90%, maintenance costs will increase (say by a factor of 20% --- until population is at a sufficient level to maintain it at the normal costings).
I disagree with this. CG2 Longbowmen are no match for a few Catapults. Now, that does mean you need a 3-1 advantage, but once the catapults have done their job, you can mop up without the loss of any units. I routinely go through wars without losing more than a few siege units.
However, I agree with this, to a large extent. Occupation is already quite difficult. I think culture is an underrated problem in this regards. You won't have a productive city ever unless you can overcome cultural pressures.
But this makes sense too. I like CivMyWay's suggestion of using a sliding scale instead of a straight definition of all cities being completely unproductive until the end of a war, and perhaps this sliding scale idea could extend to a sliding scale of productivity in a city, as time progresses, so it doesn't have zero production for a long time, before jumping straight back to full capacity (or as full capacity as cultural restrictions allow).
Similar threads
- Poll
